Ocean Floor die off.....Fukashima connection?

[K]

Forwarded to me:

Study: Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast; up from 1 percent before Fukushima

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/043380_Fukushima_radiation_ocean_life.html#ixzz2pOQJ9S00

Contact your Representatives....for monitoring, anything that will be supportive of calling out to the world that we need something NEW to help Japan with this problem that is affecting the whole world, especially Sonoma, Marin and north.....
K

[Dixon]

Study: Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast; up from 1 percent before Fukushima

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/043380_F...#ixzz2pOQJ9S00

Near the top of the comment thread accompanying the linked article is a lengthy post by a scientist (look for screen name "thejaminthemiddle") who's apparently an actual expert on die-offs of sea creatures off the California coast. He or she explains the real causes of these periodic die-offs, which, BTW, only involve a few primitive species such as algae and salps, not fish. These die-offs are natural occurrences which don't appear to have anything to do with the Fukushima disaster although they may be exacerbated by global climate change. This scientist also found and read the actual study the article was supposedly based on and says the article misrepresents the study's conclusions; apparently the study did not attribute the die-off(s) to Fukushima nor to radioactivity at all. This sort of distortion and sensationalizing of scientific studies is a common problem in the popular press. It certainly would seem to detract from the credibility of this "Natural News" website.

[K]

Thank you for sharing your feelings....thats whats great about a site like this.

[podfish]

This sort of distortion and sensationalizing of scientific studies is a common problem in the popular press. It certainly would seem to detract from the credibility of this "Natural News" website.

there are red flags all over this article. I've temporarily exceeded my quota of responses to superficially plausible articles like the one quoted, so I'm glad someone else took on this one. I'd love to find some way to show people how to read science-based reports skeptically, so we don't have to keep doing this. I know that confirmation bias is strong in all of us. That's not the problem - the problem is that people somehow don't seem to care if the quoted article could overcome confirmation bias in someone who disagrees with the article's premise. So we get a lot of junk articles here, as if they help advance any debate or discussion.

One big hint: if your article uses "data suggests" a lot, or includes "by all common sense is the most reasonable explanation...", and talks about "powers that be" and a "coverup", it's not a science-based article. Pitching some random scenario and saying it hasn't been disproved isn't science either. It should instead offer a theory, discuss it in context of other plausible theories, and explain why it still seems like the best answer. I suppose this seems tedious to many - it certainly doesn't seem to be a favored way to address controversial topics here.

[Dixon]

One big hint: if your article uses "data suggests" a lot, or includes "by all common sense is the most reasonable explanation...", and talks about "powers that be" and a "coverup", it's not a science-based article.

Agreed--up to a point. I hope no one here takes this to simplistic extremes by instantly discrediting some writing because it contains one of those phrases. Most or all such phrases could conceivably be found in a perfectly good scientific article (though probably not in a scientific journal), as long as they're accompanied by appropriate evidence/arguments in more precise language. And, automatically dismissing anyone who invokes a coverup is one way that real issues sometimes get, uh, covered up. The infamous "file drawer phenomenon" (in which researchers file away studies which have reached inconvenient results rather than publishing them) is an example of one type of coverup.

And yes, there are even a few conspiracies that are real. But I would certainly dismiss any conspiracy theory that invokes reptilian overlords from another dimension. That'sss jussst sssilly.

[Dixon]

Here's a good article by a local expert on the subject of purported radiation damage to California from Fukushima, with links to other helpful info:

On Fukushima Fears and Sensationalistic Reporting

There is an incredible amount of disinformation going on these days about Fukushima Daiichi. A lot of people are frightened by it and they call me or email me, wanting to know what I think about it.

The situation at Fukushima Daiichi is tragic and difficult. My heart goes out to the people working there, the people who have been displaced…and those who continue to live in the shadow of this disaster. Itʻs a sad situation. Iʻve been to Japan 8 or 9 times since the disaster, and Iʻm hoping I can find new and better ways to help the situation there.

Without downplaying the danger and difficulties, it is important to note that some people are exaggerating the situation at Fukushima Daiichi, for unknown reasons, in very dramatic ways. I am bombarded these days with links to websites with apocalyptic messages of imminent disaster, which fortunately do not seem to be based on reality.

Itʻs not that we should not remain vigilant, but that we should not believe everything we see and hear. Stress affects human health.

The article continues at:
https://geigercounter.com/fukushima-...tic-reporting/